like Kerry, then you aren't "totally out of touch with reality" or "so removed from basic needs that they don't care about their money...". Kerry and his pecker certainly have made themselves pretty rich (add in Teresa Heinz Kerry's 700 million and they are billionaires).
He could have aimed his tax cuts at the middle class, thus stimulate spending in the consumer market. I'm still waiting patiently for something to "trickle down," but I think the wealthy have fixed the leaks. He put through the wrong sorts of tax cuts to stimulate this economy.
He might have extended unemployment benefits, which would have prevented the private sector (credit card companies) from bankrolling the brunt of the unemployed. The consumer debts that were incurred from the last downturn are a time-bomb for the economy.
He might have prevented the unabated arbitrage of labor that has been gutting this economy, demanding at least, that countries which trade with us apply our labor laws.
Meanwhile, above a certain amount, deficit spending only does so much good. He might have reigned in spending and got control of the budget before putting through his tax cuts.
I don't have faith that Bush has a grasp of any such matters, but I do think Kerry does.
/Zin
I'm middle class, bringing in under 100K per year and I've seen a significant reduction in my income taxes. And no matter how you slice it, the top income earners still pay the majority share of taxes in this country.
RLTW
That statement is a trick with words, RLTW, no more. And you bought it. First, don't look at the "top earners" you look at the wealthiest. Then compare the percentage of wealth the top 20/5/1 percent make or own to the percentage that they pay in taxes, in that comparison they are undertaxed.
Looking at only the percentage that they pay, yes, I too believed they were being overtaxed untilI realized how rich they really were by comparison, and that even that majority of the tax revenue was a very low percentage of their wealth. And who has more of an interest in buoying this system than they? They do incredibly well with it. A percentage of what they are not paying in taxes goes to politicians to keep their taxes low.
Actually, in my so-called liberal agenda, I'd prefer for the income tax and any transactional taxes to end (the latter is a dream). I think it's a failure. But any system that replaces it would have to go where the revenue is, to the wealthy.
/Zin
That's not a "trick with words", it's simple fucking math. All forms of "wealth" are taxed in some form or another. Property taxes, inheretance taxes, capital gains taxes, too many damned taxes. The idea that because someone makes more money, or owns more assets, they should taxed at a higher percentage rate is wrong.
How long have you hated rich people, Zin? Envy isn't very healthy.
RLTW
I think you are totally whacked in the head on this one. Of course the rich ought to pay more. They have more to lose that the state protects and they get the privilege of getting to invest in a couple of systems that support the state and the state supports. Like the bonds market and a couple of other. They ought to pay more to support a means of enriching themselves further.
The poor don't get tha benefit and the middle class only a bit. So the rich should carry the burden. And since the days of real service by the filthy rich (like when Higgins developed his boat on his own or Kaiser paid the liberty ship developments costs- and see H. Hughes on a couple of plane developments) seem at an end- we need to get that money from them and back to doing good. You know they will benefit from all the contracts that go out through direct of indirect investment.
I get to play with some really wealthy people from time to time. They are often totally out of touch with reality, and often so removed from basic needs that they don't care about their money as long as there is enough. There's enough.
BTW- my pet idea is a bet on America. We all pay a 1 penny per transaction cost for 10 years. A tiny percentage of a car or a business transaction, a huge percentage of a candy purchase, but just a penny. That goes in a fund that is not touched for 10 years. I bet we are such a vibrant economy that we pay off the deficit and have cah left over for some improvements. Do it forever and we can cushion any economic blow - but that is me- a hopeful american.
like Kerry, then you aren't "totally out of touch with reality" or "so removed from basic needs that they don't care about their money...". Kerry and his pecker certainly have made themselves pretty rich (add in Teresa Heinz Kerry's 700 million and they are billionaires).
There are some mega earners on this board and some who are rich. I do not think that Zin is expressing envy or hatred of well off people. Your accusation appears to be emotional and way off base. You don't like paying taxes, others who are in the same situation or who pay even more taxes sometimes see things differently from you.
It's not an accusation based on emotion, it's sarcasm. Try not to take yourself too seriously.
RLTW
I will stop taking myself seriously on the day that you do the same.
Feeling a little sensitive tonight, dear? Is your stomach churning?
RLTW
So, try to refute this with simple fucking math, then.
If the upper one percent bring in fifty times the income of the middle class, they should be paying in fifty times the revenue: simple math. Adjust it for population, the upper one percent should be paying about two and a half times the total tax revenue the median 20 percent do. So if the middle class is paying their share of 20 percent, the upper 1 percent should be paying fifty, in any fair, flat tax. Do the math and tell me what you think the flaw of that is?
Now, that's just the upper one percent.
So, they pay most of the government revenues. That's still not even the fair amount. They are undertaxed even to judge by the flat percentage basis you cite.
I won't even go into whether your judgment about equal of percentages at every level of income is just or fair. It's fair only if you ignore the economic law of marginal utility. You tax someone who makes a billion dollars fifty percent, and they're still better than thriving. You tax the same percentage for someone making $20k, and you've probably killed them.
It is indisputable that the rich are shifting the tax burden to everyone else. Indisputable. No, I don't hate the rich. I just don't kiss their asses. If you think my attitude is hateful, you've been kissing their ass and calling it fair for so long that a guy without the brown-nose looks ugly to you.
/Zin
If you call missing the target and hitting the backstop a hit, then you may be right! But let's hear your own arguments on fair taxation.
RLTW
First of all, I don't believe there should be a corporate or business tax at all. Does that surprise you? It would free business to concentrate on decisions that are good business, not good tax avoidance. It would give American business an edge in the increasingly globalized economy. I spend at least 5% of gross income on tax accounting and other misc. internal expenses due to Fed & State tax, not to mention fees & other hidden taxes. It would also shift the tax to where it really ends up anyway: the end user.
Secondly, I would favor a strong value-added or sales tax, in lieu of income tax. Why? Because income tax is inherently inequitable, and invasive, no matter how you slice it. Most tax reforms since the inception of income tax have just been vehicles to make it "more fair" or to "shift the burden" It is not "fair" for one group to be taxed at 50% while another is taxed at 10% (or even negative tax!), but then the progressive tax structure was devised to extract more tax from those more capable of paying it, in other words the rich. For flat tax advocates, I would say this: to the wealthy (and I am fortunate to be among them) a 15% flat tax is a very light burden. To a 2-worker minimum wage family of 4, it is an unbearable burden. That's why the income tax system allows for dependents & other deductions and credits.
The problem is, the more you try to make it equitable, the more complex it gets, and the more convoluted, and burdensome it becomes. Plus it is as I said, invasive. You have it ripped from your hands before you even get to see it, and you have to give the IRS way to much personal information and the "right" to snoop into your personal affairs.
With value-added, or sales tax, it's real simple. If you have money to spend, you have money to pay the tax! The more spending you do, the more tax you pay. If you are thrifty, and save and invest, you pay no tax. I would exempt certain items, like food, and possibly institute luxury tax or surcharges on certain items to mitigate greater environmental impacts or whatever. But beyond that, I would keep it as simple as possible. The problem with using this as the only tax is, that it would be a large enough tax that it would encourage bartering and black market to avoid the tax. To keep it below that threshold, there could be other forms such as property tax to round out the budget.
One of the bigest problems with taxation, is that even if you could have a fair and equitable system, the people being taxed want to believe that there money is being well spent, and I believe that is as big a problem as the tax structure. Our government has become too bloated and ineffecient. There is too much waste, and too much pork-barrel legislation, and it has got to stop. There is also too much corporate welfare. Right wingers like to harp on welfare, but overlook the handouts to big business and payola to foreign dictators.
I am interested. And I agree with you. I would love to see the income tax replaced by a consumption tax system based on the one that Congressman John Linder has been proposing. But I'm not optimistic about it happening. BTW, I'm a crazy libertarian, not a rabid right winger.
RLTW
I would love a consumption tax. I fall in the top 20% of earners in this country, but my "consumption" expenditures are much smaller that many two wage earner families whose combined income is maybe 70% of what I will earn this year. So, I will make out well under a "consumption" tax system.
But I hope that a "consumption" tax is never implemented for the very reasons that Zin pointed out. People who are doing well will more than likely avoid paying their fair share of the burden of supporting this commonwealth that we live in. Hate the term "commonwealth"? Well, get used to it, because that is exactly what you live in now and have lived in since your conception.
I would like to see a wealthy person forgo police protection, fire protection, road maintenance, traffic regulation, investment and savings protection, banking protections, consumer protection, ect, and pay for their "own" services of the type listed. They could keep every cent of tax that they would have paid government in taxes. One year of doing this and they will come back begging to be allowed back into the tax system that we have. I am not is the category that would allow me to attempt such an "experiment", but even if I was, I would not do so because I have analyzed the consequencies.
Everyone can cite examples of "waste' in government, the only problem is that when they are citing that waste, they are citing waste that others benefit from. People do not look in their own back yards at government programs that give them their little pork barrels. So, lets eliminate waste, with the condition that we work to eliminate every single case of it.
not be any tax system that will work very well. I also think if you read between your own lines, you agree with me that in order for any tax system to work, the person being taxed has to believe they are benefiting, and that there is some sense of equity. There will always be some greedy selfish bastards who don't want to shoulder even a fair share of taxes. There was even one of those no-tax assholes who posted a while back, proud of the fact that he wasn't paying tax because he had found some loophole based on constitutional grounds.
By the way, the wealthy do pay for a lot of services twice. For example, I pay my taxes proudly, and am in a top bracket. I pay all state, local and county taxes that go for roads, libraries, schools, police protection, etc., but I also live in a private gated community, and pay for the maintenance of all public facilities within the gates, and I also have private security services. I have my own library, so I don't use the public ones hardly at all, my house is virtually fireproof and sprinklered, so not likely to need the fire dept., my kids are grown, so I don't benefit directly from the schools, and so on. I'm not bitching here, either. I'm just saying that I do pay for my "own" services, and for a lot of other peoples as well.
I agree with you completely on why a person should gladly pay taxes, it is simply self-preservation. I also agree with you about the absolute, no-tax jackasses, hope everyone that is found get buried under a jailhouse.
But you statement below leaves me to pause;
By the way, the wealthy do pay for a lot of services twice. For example, I pay my taxes proudly, and am in a top bracket. I pay all state, local and county taxes that go for roads, libraries, schools, police protection, etc., but I also live in a private gated community, and pay for the maintenance of all public facilities within the gates, and I also have private security services. I have my own library, so I don't use the public ones hardly at all, my house is virtually fireproof and sprinklered, so not likely to need the fire dept., my kids are grown, so I don't benefit directly from the schools, and so on. I'm not bitching here, either. I'm just saying that I do pay for my "own" services, and for a lot of other peoples as well.
- Do you seriously think that if there were no functioning city, county and state police and fire departments all around your gates community that it would last long? The reason why your private security works is because standards are set on them and they will be held accountable for their conduct (with real police being the enforcers). Remove the city, state and US financed police and you gated community would become an animal house real fast.
-Other than my diatribe above, I think that your views on taxes and the role of the fortunate in society are right on target.
public infrastructure, I simply pointed out that the wealthy often do pay full price for public improvements and services, while also paying for the same thing privately. People who send their kids to private schools have the same issue. Granted, it is always a matter of choice.
As for my gated compound surviving in face of the colapse of the surrounding public infrastructure, please see my response to RLTW under emeraldvodka's thread above.
I don't believe your attitude is hateful. Marxist? maybe. Misguided? absolutely.
Your arguments seem to be based on a notion that earnings of high achievers doesn't belong to them. That there should be a limit on how successful one can become and the almighty government should dictate how much wealth a person should be allowed to keep. I disagree. That type of thinking goes against the principles of individual liberty.
And simple math does refute your argument. Someone who earns 500K a year, taxed at 10% would pay 50K in taxes, versus a 50K per year earner paying 5K in taxes. Ten times as much money paid to the federal government. Simple fucking math.
Reform and simplify the tax code and treat everyone equally, instead of penalizing high achievers. Fair treatment means equal treatment, it should never be defined by a bunch of politicians, or socialists.
RLTW
-- Modified on 8/6/2004 8:21:34 AM
This doesn't logically compute. Besides, do I remember a post saying that you found equality undesirable, Marxist even, why equate equal percentages to justice and fairness, then?
Believe me, the majority wealthy will fight, evade and avoid the exact tax system you are proposing, I say this because they already do. That's the main reason the tax system is now so complex and obscure.
/Zin
It's really simple, Zin. Equal treatment under the law. Equal taxation rates regardless of the amount of income. In straight dollar amounts, those who earn less pay less, those that earn more pay more. Yet, the taxation rate is equal for everyone. Equal treatment.
I can repeat it a couple times if you like, but I don't believe you're willing to open your mind to the concept. And I challenge you to find any statement where I've said that the concept of equal treatment is undesirable. You're confusing me with someone else, or just plain confused.
RLTW
But I rather thought equal treatment under the law meant that if you break it you'll be prosecuted regardless of status, and you could expect a sentence to be without regard to status.
/Zin
On that point I agree with you, and it's a shame that's not always the case with our judicial system. But I also believe equal treatment should apply to the tax system as well.
RLTW
-- Modified on 8/6/2004 7:33:50 PM
But the rich DON'T have a equal playing field. Our society gives them all sorts of rights and protections that reglar folk to do have access to or often knowledge of. That they carry more of the load in partial repayment is only "fair" or at least "Fairer".
If they were taking the initiative to do more good works and charity support, I might agree with you. But "Noblesse Oblige".
Are you honestly gonna tell me that that guy who was leading the NYSE was worth his pay package? Keep score how you want- but make sure that caesar gets his due.
One look at our crumbling infrastructure shouldf tell you there is not enough in the kitty.
"And simple math does refute your argument. Someone who earns 500K a year, taxed at 10% would pay 50K in taxes, versus a 50K per year earner paying 5K in taxes. Ten times as much money paid to the federal government. Simple fucking math."
The 500K wage earner is going to have 450K after he or she pays taxes. Enough to gas up the luxury cars all year and maybe get a few extra tanks for the big boat, or some extras for the summer home. And still have enough to do home improvements on the main residence (damn, really need that 2,000 sqft expansion, or that covered, in- ground lap pool).
The 50K earner on the other hand, is going to have to definitely give up something because of the 5k paid in taxes.
So, I guess it is simple f**** math. And Zin is still right and you are still wrong.
And what will be added to all of those expenses? They'll be taxed! The evil rich person will be contributing more tax revenue, holy shit! He'll be pumping money back into the economy, damn it! That filthy rich scumbag will be providing income opportunities to carpenters and remodelers, sales people, boat and auto mechanics, the horror! We can't have that now can we?
What up with that? Do you hate rich people too?
RLTW
"And simple math does refute your argument. Someone who earns 500K a year, taxed at 10% would pay 50K in taxes, versus a 50K per year earner paying 5K in taxes. Ten times as much money paid to the federal government. Simple fucking math."
The 500K wage earner is going to have 450K after he or she pays taxes. Enough to gas up the luxury cars all year and maybe get a few extra tanks for the big boat, or some extras for the summer home. And still have enough to do home improvements on the main residence (damn, really need that 2,000 sqft expansion, or that covered, in- ground lap pool).
The 50K earner on the other hand, is going to have to definitely give up something because of the 5k paid in taxes.
So, I guess it is simple f**** math. And Zin is still right and you are still wrong.
"Say something once, why say it again"
Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it right!
RLTW
laws to shelter his or her wealth. That is the way that things have been for ages, under all types of administrations. So what is new?
The problem that I have with heavily cutting taxes for some wage brackets (and I will give up serious money when tax cuts are ended, if that happens - so don't accuse me of being tax and spend) is that it goes against the logic having properly balanced income coming in and expenditures going out. The tax cuts that were enacted after the 9/11/2001 attacks and the ones that came after those and those that are still to come, removes the flexibility that the government has to deal with the expenses that will be incurred for a full fledged war on terror.
I have said a while ago that faced with the choice of paying more taxes or fighting off angry hordes at my doodstep, I will choose higher taxes every single time, in the end, it is simply a more cost effective choice.
-- Modified on 8/5/2004 6:00:09 PM
While they are planning on rescinding mine. Which seems only fair to me, since I am able to pay the greater tax burden, while you are apparently not. No problemo, I'm happy to help shoulder the financial load for you as my civic duty, much as you did your civic duty in fighting in the military years ago.
Doing your civic duty is a lot cheaper than trying to hold on to your wealth as our society breaks down around you. But, you wealth will at least allow you to fight off angry hordes longer than some posters who take the opposite view on taxes will be able to.
So you really expect the angry hordes to come charging down your street while you pick them off with a well oiled carbine?
Tell me. If you were dropped in deep jungle among hostile forces, which would you choose:
1.A perfectly working assault rifle with a full magazine and two spares?
2.One good sturdy knife and a small sharpening stone?
You need help. Really. Go get laid or have some gin.
But to answer your obviously very serious minded question, the knife and stone.
RLTW
drinks. Maybe I am getting soft in more ways than one.
Try a more difficult question next time. One more worthy of a "skilled hunter" such as yourself. Hell, even a leg private could answer the last one right. 
RLTW
We should all pay the same percentage rate while reducing the waste in government spending on bloated social programs and pork. Take your extra earnings and invest in private interprise or charitable causes. You'll use the extra money far more efficiently than the Federal Government.
RLTW
-- Modified on 8/5/2004 8:03:10 PM
I am middle class, a small business owner and as I have stated previously, my tax burden increased. The sad part is, it is going to continue to increase due to record deficits and no vision on how to reduce it.
Many threads back, I've already told my story of how Shrub's tax cuts in 2001 allowed me to stimulate the economy with an additional $1 per paycheck. And stimulate the economy I did; that approximate $20 increase in annual net income was spent on losing lottery tickets.
Your comment reminds me of the old lady who did those Wendy's commercials in the mid 1980's. Instead of "Where's the beef?", it's "Where's the cuts?"!!!
-- Modified on 8/5/2004 11:28:23 PM
Geeze- how do you afford the hobby?
I am not prepared to trade my comfort level with the trashing of my country's rep.
1. The tax cuts were across the board. Everyone who paid taxes got a tax cut. If you didn't, you weren't working. Seeing that your two reviews are in 2004, it might be true that you were unemployed, paid no taxes and received no tax refund. (I would add that if you paid no taxes, you didn't deserve a tax refund)
2. We will have to disagree about extending unemployment benefits, I just don't think it is the average taxpayers responsibility to underwrite the unemployed. Basic unemployment is paid by employers and when that runs out its time for people to get creative, work for less, etc. My belief, I know you don't share it.
3. Neither party seems willing to do anything about the "unabated arbitrage of labor that has been gutting this economy (and you know it)! Demanding that other countries apply our labor laws is a ridiculously contrived idea. We even trade with countries that charge huge tariffs on our products, i.e. Japan, and have done so since WWII even with Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter and Clinton as presidents. Refusing to do business with countries that won't adapt our labor laws would do nothing but decimate those countries economies - Oh and make them hate us more!
4. Bush rolled back a portion of the largest tax increase in American history under Clinton which resulted in such over taxation that the government was making a profit, which it is not suppose to do. Based on your thinking Franklin Roosevelt was also wrong in spending with a deficit, before and during WWII.
5. Your faith in Kerry is based on what? He puts out these flowery press releases on what he's going to do, but no game plan for accomplishing it. i.e. that health care press release yesterday. The reason he doesn't want to tell us is that the only way to accomplish these socialist giveaways would be to substantially increase income tax on everyone! And that revelation would turn the country against his candidacy, just like it did Mondale.
It would be interesting to see the Kerry Heinz 2003 tax returns! Given that together they are worth maybe a billion dollars I bet they paid less in Federal Tax than they spent on fuel for their Gulf Stream VIII. Again I say the wealthy are not taxed, its those attempting to become wealthy.
These words wer not Zin's. They were written by a one Mr. Bribite.
"It would be interesting to see the Kerry Heinz 2003 tax returns! Given that together they are worth maybe a billion dollars I bet they paid less in Federal Tax than they spent on fuel for their Gulf Stream VIII."
-this is ST25 taking the freedom of the bard to say, take a look at Bri's last sentence below.
"Again I say the wealthy are not taxed, its those attempting to become wealthy."
-socialist class warrior!!
You are not suggesting that Mr. Bribite was being a hypocrite ? Why, that is ridiculous !!!!
You sir are either a commie bastard or one of those liberals too busy FEELING to understand the difference between a Republican flip-flop and the truth. You see, the truth is static, like a pie, and when a Republican is flippin or floppin its because the truth is a flippin and a floppin.
-- Modified on 8/5/2004 9:17:03 PM
And toward the wrongful rich, like Kerry.
/Zin
Yes, the tax cuts were across the board, but skewed, the better off got better. I happened to get a very generous tax cut, just in time, because my unemployment had just ended. I would have rather that my company have not outsourced my job, in blatent violation of a union contract, a breech they still haven't been made to account for under Bush.
If government (the taxpayers) have absolutely no responsibility to buffer difficult times, or no responsibility at all to any other countrymen, then people are going to have more and more reason to despise the government and no motivation for keeping it. I know that you believe the governments only legit responsibility can be in defense, but for Americans, it will always be easier to rebel against their own government than the Taliban.
If we can't get other countries to apply labor laws because they may hate us more, then I suggest we need more clever leadership to keep their hatred divided. I don't mind hiring overseas, just pay them like Americans. If you did that, you would automatically have the country's attitudes toward us divided. As it is, we are buying their good will at the cost of becoming beggers. We might, in the end, be beloved by all, but we'll be mendicants.
I've heard "the largest tax increase in history" phrase before, Bribite, and I've never believed it. Top tax brackets when JFK took office were 95 percent. Somebody raised taxes that high, before Clinton, and Clinton did not approach that. Also the economy flourished under Clinton, hardly the hallmark of being taxed to death. When Clinton's original "economic stimulas package" passed congress, I remember Rush Limbaugh predicting that the economy would be tanked in a year. I doubt that any Ditto Head made Rush eat those words. Also, I don't remember my taxes going up terribly under Clinton.
To be continued ...
1. Those who paid more in taxes, got more back. Where is that illogical? Unless of course you only care about wealth redistribution, which it seems you are.
2. This country succeeded and prospered for 150 years without the social engineering that you embrace. That you consider that our government doesn't do enough to "buffer difficult times" is laughable to me. Geez, as if anyone could live on "Unemployment Insurance"! Pardon me but, the rebel comment makes no sense to me, I have no idea what you are talking about!?!
3. It would seem with the success of WALMART that the American people just want the best value. However, the bigger picture is that the economy and the world are changing from Manufacturing to the Information Age. Just as those buggy whip companies failed with the advent of the automobile, things are changing now and the American worker will have to adapt or indeed become mendicant (haven't seen that word since the SAT in 1968). New technology is erupting constantly, just last month we had the first "private" venture into space, these kind of inventions will fuel the economy for decades. Opportunity is everywhere, and it never comes from the hand of government.
However, to think that anyone (Kerry) would stop trading with third world countries if they don't start paying their labor American rates is absurd. And you're smart enough to know it. The hope is in developing middle classes (consumer classes) in these countries, they will eventually buy American made products as have Japan, Korea, Taiwan.
4. Clinton's tax increase, (three weeks after taking office) was retroactive to the tax year 1992 and most people who paid taxes through withholding felt the increase through little or no tax refund or had to anti up in April. It resulted in more private money being taken out of the economy than any other tax increase in the history of the country. I don't know your tax bracket, but all of my employees sure felt it. Tax withholding was increased immediately and net pay checks were measurably less, across the board.
I don't know about Limbaugh, I'm not a listener, but almost without exception economists say that tax changes take 3 to 5 years to effect the economy. Please note that the last recession started during Clinton's term and much of the success was gained from now failed DotCom companies and in retrospect were not gains at all, just mere empty boxes and greed. Furthermore, the current unemployment rate of 5.6 is exactly the same as it was in 1996 when Clinton was re-elected. That some people have lost good jobs to outsourcing is sad, but it is the consumer who drives these jobs elsewhere, not the President!
-- Modified on 8/6/2004 5:07:11 PM
Only now, the pony is long gone and a fat elephant is dropping them.
"I don't know about Limbaugh, I'm not a listener, but almost without exception economists say that tax changes take 3 to 5 years to effect the economy."
- So, all of your arguments about the tax cuts enacted in late 2001 having stimulated the economy is bunk? Per your math, we should not expect to see stimulus until sometime in November 2004, at the earliest and November 2006 at the latest. Also, did you realize, that by your logic, any economic improvement now taking place is a result of President Clinton's tax changes just before he left office? Must make you sick, doesn't it? But stepping into elephant s*** does that to people.
Once again, as a middle income small business owner my tax burden INCREASED. So your across the board tax cuts are flawed to say the least.
And did you realize that the $400 economy stimuli that many of us received, (or whatever Bush called it) was taxed on your latest tax return?
I know in my area that most people put that $400 towards neccesary items, like overdue mortgage/rent/auto payments, food and clothing. Not stimulating the economy at all just helping people live 1 more month before facing the repossesor/foreclosure/banruptcy that has been so prevalent the past 2 years.